Mychal Massie asserts how down he is with Donald Sterling's racist sentiments in his May 19 WorldNetDaily column:

Donald Sterling has been treated unjustly; I’ve said it before, and I remain recalcitrant pursuant to that opinion. Mr. Sterling is being used by race-mongers and melanin pimps as validation of institutional racism – which loosely translated means the modern-day equivalents of Joseph Goebbels are using Mr. Sterling’s private conversation as proof that in America, rich white men are impeding progress for blacks.

For those who remember the riots in the Watts section of Los Angeles following the acquittal of the police officers charged with beating Rodney King, America was told that the malevolent voices, those such as Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, et al., represented blacks nationwide. The only problem is, that wasn’t remotely the case. In fact it can be validly argued that it was precisely because of the malicious heterodoxy and vitriol of those who supposedly spoke for all blacks that black conservatives organized and made their presence known.

We are witnessing another such seminal moment with respect to Mr. Sterling. Persons of color who understand and believe in the Constitution support his right to the free expression of his personal opinions.

[...]

I do not condemn the words of a person such as Mr. Sterling because in America we are privileged to have the right to express our opinions, especially when it comes to the practices of someone we are involved with. I do not view the words of Mr. Sterling as harmful to me as an American of color or to anyone else.

Massie is particularly down with Sterling's opinions about Magic Johnson:

As a father, I have referenced Magic Johnson as a successful businessman, but he is not the person I would hold up as a model for my son. Johnson, by his own admission, lived a debauched lifestyle. He not only endangered himself with his selfish pursuit of sexual gratification, but he also endangered his family and those he was sexually active with. He is not to be championed as a safe-sex advocate, i.e., just wear a condom; he is to be used as an example of why we should teach abstinence and restraint to our children.

But those who espouse commonality for blacks are loath to admit that. They want blacks to be governed by anger and resentment that’s used to tether them to a past when blacks suffered indignities, and to use anecdotal evidences of same as proving the perceived pandemic of institutional racism argued to exist today.

NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's Watch-ChihuahuaTopic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center launches MRC Latino, despite the fact that it has not been historically friendly toward Hispanics or their issues. Read more >>

WND's Jack Wheeler Is On An Obama Derangement RollTopic: WorldNetDaily

Jack Wheeler resurfaced at WorldNetDaily a couple weeks back to peddle his brand of Obama derangement. He's apparently on a derangement roll because he has more deep thoughts to share with the world.

in his May 19 column, Wheeler laments that impeachment is too cumbersome and that "there is a much faster and easier way to eject Obama from office. It is the law that can put him in jail." Wheeler unearths the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits the government from authorizing an expenditure exceeding the amount appropriated for it.

What does that have to do with Obama? Wheeler sorta explains:

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has provided 76 examples of Obama’s lawlessness. In each instance, it cost federal government money to implement them. Were any of these implementations authorized by a congressional appropriation? For every one that wasn’t, that’s one count of violating the Antideficiency Act. Every count of which the defendant is found guilty can mean two years in jail.

Mr. Obama needs to be prosecuted in violation of the Antideficiency Act. He can be criminally prosecuted, per §1350, for knowingly and willfully violating it.

Note, however, that §1349 only requires violation of the act (without the knowing/willful qualifier) for the perpetrator to be suspended and removed from office.

First, as we've previously noted, a significant number of Cruz's "76 examples of Obama’s lawlessness" aren't even true. Second, if Wikipedia is to be believed, nobody has ever been prosecuted, let alone indicted, for violating this law.

But Wheeler isn't about to let reality get in his way:

We have the Constitution and the specific federal law to put an end to the tyranny. It’s time to go on offense. All patriots now have the opportunity to actively encourage Republican governors to have their state prosecute the president and to help conservative law firms build their case.

The Antideficiency Act is the means by which Mr. Obama can be thrown out of office and go to jail. Let’s use it.

If Wheeler has not met Larry Klayman, a similarly reality-challenged Obama-hater, WND should really introduce those two.

The resignation of Barack Obama would be a victory for the American people, create an opportunity for the restoration of the Constitution and the rule of law and allow citizens to regain control of the government. At the same time, the departure of Obama will elicit a torrent of revelations that will likely taint the highest officials in government, the leadership of both political parties and the upper echelons of the media.

Like Obama, the establishment considers itself too big to fail, but no government can survive if the interests of its officials conflict with those of the people.

It is time for Obama to resign and let a hopelessly corrupt government fail.

Dinesh D'Souza May Be Guilty, But The Obama Conspiracy To Get Him Lives At WNDTopic: WorldNetDaily

Jerome Corsi has never been one to let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy, and he certainly isn't about to when it comes to President Obama's purported war against Dinesh D'Souza.

Back in January, Corsi trotted out the producer of D'Souza's films, Gerald Molen, to claim that D'Souza's arrest on charges of making illegal campaign contributions is "political prosecution" comparable to the tactics used on the communist former Soviet Union to quell dissent. Now that D'Souza has not only pleaded guilty to making the illegal campaign donations but admitted he knew that what he was doing was illegal, Corsi and Molen won't let the conspiracy die a natural death, as Corsi wrote in a May 20 WND article:

Molen issued a statement after D’Souza’s court hearing Tuesday.

“This administration doesn’t see its opponents as dissenters but as enemies, and if they can’t refute you, they try to lock you up,” he said.

“Normally these types of offenses are resolved with fines or community service. I and the American people will be watching closely to make sure that justice is done in the sentencing portion.”

In January, Molen’s response to D’Souza’s indictment also was blunt.

“When Dinesh D’Souza can be prosecuted for making a movie, every American should ask themselves one question: ‘What will I do to preserve the First Amendment?’” Molen, the producer of “2016: Obama’s America,” told WND at the time.

Corsi didn't point out that D'Souza's guilty plea makes his earlier statement a fraud. He wasn't prosecuted for "making a movie," he was prosecuted for breaking the law.

Corsi and Molen do not explain why they believe Obama-haters should not be held responsible for their crimes.

As we've amplydocumented, the Media Research Center's ongoing "Tell the Truth!" campaign doesn't apply to unflattering news about its favored conservatives.

Tim Graham demonstrates this hypocrisy yet again in a May 17 NewsBusters post in which he complains that Politico is reporting the facts about conservative Oregon Senate candidate Monica Wehby:

Politico’s helping the Democrats wage war on women candidates right before the U.S. Senate primary in Oregon. First, John Bresnahan reported “GOP Senate candidate Monica Wehby was accused by her ex-boyfriend last year of ‘stalking’ him, entering his home without his permission and ‘harassing’ his employees, according to a Portland, Oregon police report.”

Wehby (pronounced "Webby") led incumbent Sen. Jeff Merkley (D) in one poll, so perhaps the liberals want to defeat her in the primary. Then Politico obtained a 911 call from Miller so they could call it the "Wehby saga," in which he said he was going to get a restraining order:

[...]

Liberal media types love to pound tables and complain about how the Supreme Court has allowed wealthy donors to make politics more brutal with negative ads. But what does Politico say when it's the wealthy media outlet sliming a candidate and their personal life?

At no point does Graham counter any of Politico's reporting -- he's merely complaining that facts are being reported.All Graham can do is complain that Politico's "running around and obtaining police reports and 911 calls looks a little like the way the Chicago Tribune cleared the path for Barack Obama to get elected to the Senate in 2004." Graham noted nothing inaccurate in that reporting either.

Further, this seems to be a pattern with Wehby -- she has also been accused of harrassing her ex-husband as they were divorcing.

Perhaps Graham should be grateful that the truth is coming out now instead of closer to a general election.

WND's Klein Slides Down the Radio Dial, Gives Larry Klayman A ForumTopic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein has moved his New York Sunday radio show from longtime powerhouse WABC to a station that doesn't even register in the ratings for New York radio and has to cut its brodcasting power by 90 percent at night. One reason for Klein's slide down the dial may be guests like Larry Klayman.

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts may have been blackmailed to approve Obamacare after being spied on by the NSA and CIA, says Larry Klayman, the attorney who has come to be known as “the NSA slayer” for his successful legal battles against the National Security Agency.

During an appearance Sunday night on Aaron Klein’s New York City radio show on 970 The Answer, Klayman suggested the blackmail possibility when asked by a caller if the Supreme Court could be sued for its approval of the Affordable Care Act.

“Unfortunately, there’s no way to sue the Supreme Court for decisions that it makes. There should be, and there should be a way to remove these justices for making decisions like that,” explained Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch who now heads Freedom Watch.

“But let’s take this possibility: Why did Chief Justice Roberts at the eleventh hour change his decision? He was going to side with the other justices and find that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Is it something that was dug up on him by the NSA or the CIA? Was that used against him to blackmail him?

“These are the kinds of things [the government is doing], and that’s why it’s so scary what’s going on with the NSA and the CIA. It can happen in a democracy. So that may help explain it, and perhaps we can reach these issues through the NSA cases that we brought, the NSA/CIA cases. I intend to get the truth on this.”

Geoffrey Dickens breathlessly writes in a May 15 Media Research Center item:

On Wednesday Judicial Watch released a new batch of IRS documents that showed “extensive pressure on the IRS by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) to shut down conservative leaning organizations.” The documents also revealed the IRS’s handling of the Tea Party applications was directed out of the agency’s DC headquarters, contrary to initial claims that blamed low-level officials in Cincinnati.

While the news led Wednesday's Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC, coverage by the Big Three (ABC, NBC, CBS) networks on their Wednesday evening and Thursday morning shows? 0 seconds.

But Dickens isn't telling the full truth about the IRS documents, choosing only to parrot what the right-wing Judicial Watch said about them.

As Media Matters points out, Levin did not tell the IRS to "shut down conservative leaning organizations"; rather, he urged the IRS to "remind all 501(c)(4) organizations about their obligation to observe that restriction on their activities if they want to retain their tax exempt status." Another Levin email on the subject added, "This is not a partisan issue."

Walid Shoebat is an utterlydiscredited far-right ideologue with a shady past he may be fibbing about. So why does WorldNetDaily keep treating him as credible?

Jim Fletcher treats Shoebat as a Bible scholar worth listening to in a May 18 WND article:

A prominent Bible-prophecy teacher claims the true site of the biblical Tower of Babel is in Saudi Arabia and the concept of “Mystery Babylon” actually refers to Mecca, not the Vatican, as some researchers of Scripture claim.

Walid Shoebat, a former PLO operative, tells fellow Christians they’re looking in the wrong place when trying to understand the identity of the people who make up the worldview outlined in Revelation 17:1-5.

[...]

Shoebat contends the Bible’s references to cities point to Arabia.

“When it comes to the destruction of end-days Babylon, Scripture makes no mention of any of the ancient Babylonian cities: Nineveh, Ur, Babel, Erech, Accad, Sumer, Assur, Calneh, Mari, Karana, Ellpi, Eridu, Kish, or Tikrit. All of the literal references in Scripture are in Arabia.”

Fletcher does include a comment from a "veteran prophecy teacher" who states that "There is no such thing as ‘Mystery Babylon,’ according to the grammar of the Greek text." But Fletcher still devotes most of his article to Shoebat, despite never bothering to outline what Shoebat's qualifications are to make pronouncements about Biblical prophecy.

Since October 2001, when the Afghanistan war began, 1,798 children and 1,107 widows had their loved ones pass away in the conflict, according to CNSNews.com’s database of U.S. casualties.

In the more than 12 years that have passed since U.S. troops first entered Afghanistan, 2,195 service personnel have given their lives in and around Afghanistan in support of U.S. military activities in that country. Those 2,195 men and women left behind a combined 2,905 widows and children -- 2,083 of those widows and children, or 71.7%, came after President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009.

As has happened so often in CNS' Afghanistan body count obsession, two words are missing from Meyer's article: "Bush" and "Iraq." Meyer does not identify the president who presided over more than 4,000 U.S. troop deaths in Iraq -- or 28.3 percent of the deaths in Afghanistan -- nor has CNS made an effort to count up the widows and orphans of troops killed in Iraq.

The Bundy Ranch saga isn't even two months old, and already WorldNetDaily's Larry Klayman is trying to peddle a revisionist history of it:

A New York Times poll taken in 2011 – before a slate of Obama’s “phony scandals” hit in a major way, from Obamacare, to Fast and Furious, to IRS-gate, to Benghazi-gate, to Extortion 17-gate, to the mother of all scandals, NSA-gate – showed that over 90 percent of the American people have a deep distrust of government. And, this was heightened among many of us during the recent events at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada, where armed Obama Bureau of Land Management thugs, disguised as government officers, used heavy weaponry, including machine guns, clubs, armored vehicles and drones to try to force the Bundys off their land in a power play likely designed to turn the land over to “friends” of Majority Senate Leader Harry Reid and his Las Vegas attorney son. Fortunately, for the time being, American patriots came to the defense of the Bundys and exercised their Second Amendment rights to have the government stand down. Unfortunately, Cliven Bundy, the ranch’s owner, made some rather ill-thought comments about African-Americans, giving the government apparent license to now threaten prosecution of those citizens who stood their ground in defense of property rights and the use of excessive force.

First: The BLM did not try to force Bundy off his own land -- it confiscated some of Bundy's cattle for illegally grazing on federal land.

Second: Even the right-wing Breitbart conceded, the federal land in question was nowhere near the Bundy Ranch, and there was no "land grab."

Sean Long writes in a May 16 Media Research Center Business & Media Institute item:

It is a sad day when the iconic Godzilla becomes a vessel for extreme environmentalism.

Gareth Edwards’ remake of the classic “Godzilla” pushed a strong environmental message where three massive monsters serve as nature’s brutal revenge against mankind’s abuse of the earth. The film which opened on May 16, sent multiple messages including anti-nuclear power and the message that “humanity has abused” the world and “deserved” Godzilla’s attack, according to the director.

[...]

Edwards also tried to exploit fear of global warming. While refraining from making this message explicit, The Daily Beast also reported Edwards saying that “stories have been used for a long time to smuggle the morals of the day inside them, and today, people are worried about global warming.”

A few media outlets have noticed the radical environmental messages in the new “Godzilla,” movie including the Latin Times’s Phillip Martinez who called “Godzilla” a “life lesson on how man has ‘tarnished’ nature.”

Long quotes only interviews about the film, and he gives no indication he has actually seen the film he's critiquing.

By contrast, another ConWeb writer did see the film before writing about it, and he couldn't find that supposedly radical message. Drew Zahn writes in his WorldNetDaily review:

What didn’t finally arrive in the movie, however, was the purported environmentalist message I was expecting, based on other commentaries. The whole, “shove global warming down your throat” message never materialized.

True, there is a line in the film, “The arrogance of man is thinking nature is in our control and not the other way around,” but, of course, that could be interpreted any number of ways. And there is a general sense of dread about nuclear weaponry (which was a significant theme in the original series of films, begun in 1954).

But a careful examination of Director Edwards’ words reveals his ideas don’t fit quite so neatly into hyperpartisan boxes.

[...]

As for the huge, environmentalist message? If Edwards was trying a preach a message about how evil humanity is and how we’re in danger of disaster from our carbon footprint … he failed.

On the other hand, if he was trying to make an entertaining monster movie that honors the legend of Godzilla … he succeeded wonderfully.

Perhaps that should be a lesson to Long: See the movie before you bash it.

Jim Fletcher's moderatelyunethicalhabit of giving ridiculously positive reviews of books published by WorldNetDaily -- the company that just so happens to publish his column -- continues apace with a couple of recent columns.

James Rogan is nothing if not a skilled storyteller, and in the telling of his own story – a memorable memoir titled “Rough Edges” – the judge and former attorney and U.S. congressman hearkens back to a type of American that built this country and made it great. “Rough Edges” is a powerful tale of hardscrabble beginnings, a wobbly early adulthood and finally, a successful life making a difference in the lives of others.

Fletcher follows with a May 13 column to sing the praises of WND's favorite race-baiter, Colin Flaherty:

Flaherty’s book is the kind all Americans need to read. For one thing, it might save your life. We must face facts, and the fact is, racial violence against whites is reaching lethal levels. If the mainstream media masks that fact, the rest of us through word of mouth can alert our friends and family to be on guard.

In “White Girl Bleed A Lot,” Flaherty pulls the ski mask off the face of racial violence, noting that “games” like “Beat Whitey Night,” or the better-known “Knockout Game,” are a scourge in more than 50 American cities. This violence has escalated sharply since 2010.

[...]

Flaherty, a very clever writer, also humorously coaches readers to counter the icy reception from liberal relatives: He encourages the book giver to shout out, “Read 17! 22!”

It’s an effective strategy. Overall, readers should simply shout the title of this important book to as many in their circles as they can.

Needless to say, WND published Flaherty's book too. That important fact is missing from both of Fletcher's columns.

As far as we know, Fletcher has never panned a WND-published book. Nor should anyone expect him to -- that's not what he's being paid to do.

Meanwhile ...Topic: Accuracy in MediaRight Wing Watch does an able job of shooting down James Simpson's Accuracy in Media column alleging that voter fraud is a massive, “existential threat to our American Republic,” despite the fact that he provides no examples of large-scale voter fraud.

As a commentator, I often revisit that little American girl who asked her father during the Vietnam War, “What if they gave a war and nobody showed up?”

You’re grown up now, Baby. And it’s already happened! At least the attackers have shown up big-time, but we defenders have yet to take the field.

One single fraudulent vote is an “attack” on our democratic system. Massive voter fraud is a massive attack. The website Watchdog.com tells us that a group known as the Virginia Voters Alliance counted 44,000 voters registered in Maryland as well as Virginia. An additional 40 to 60 thousand dead voters were found to be on the active voters list in that one state of Virginia, according to the Social Security Administration. It’s not just Chicago any more.

Actually, none of that is evidence of "voter fraud." Dead people on voter rolls is fairly common, as is people who might be registered in two places -- in the case of Maryland and Virginia, both states surround Washington, D.C., and it's not uncommon for people to move between the two states.

Not only is it not "voter fraud," it's not even voter registration fraud in the vast majority of the cases -- there's simply a need to clean up voter rolls to removed duplicates and the dead.

While Farber insists that arguments against voter ID laws are "comically weak," the type of voter fraud this would counter is virtually nonexistent.